ML20128E029

Forwards Rept on FSAR Review of Containment & Other Class I Structures

ML20128E029
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/05/1969
From:	Dromerick A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212070452
Download: ML20128E029 (2)

Text

' --

~ - - - - -

.......,,n,...,.,,a 6 '* g fpK NOV 5 1900 R. S. Boyd, Assistaat riirerter for Reactor Projects, DRL filRU: 1. Levine, Asnistent Director for R2 actor Technology, DRL NORTilERN STATES POWER COMPANY-MONTICELLO NUCLEAR CENERATING PLANT,,

IDilf 1 - DOCKET NO. 50-263 FSAR REVIEW OF CONTAINKENT AMD OTER CLASS I STRUCTURES Attached is a report on the FSAR review of the Monticello Unit il containment and other Claus I structures. N. M. Newmark's report has not been received to date, but the only anticipated major concern will be the seismic design of Class I piping systems (similar to Dresden 2 and 3 and Millstone f1).

A. W. Dromerick, Chief RT-800A Containment & Component Technology Branch DRL C&CIBtECA Division of Raactor Licensing Enclosure FSAR Containnent & Class I Structure Report ec w/encli D. Muller, DRL D. Vassallo A. Cluckmann F. Schauer R. Shewanker N. Davison DISTRIBUTION:

Supp1 D -(~ S. Levine DRLRd9ing R. DeYoung C&CIB Reading A. Dromerick ADRT Reading E. Arndt C&CTB Reading ItR orrict > ..DRLtC& ,

DRL CT_B,,,D.RL.: D.ADRT_ , ,,D @RT ,, , , , , , , _ , , ,

suamt > .EG

,!, ,}

t.mim-euf.g hDr

}{oung. .SL rick . 4LC he.... . . . . . . . . - . . . . .

cu > 10 4 9 h o.2 2 6 , = 1 ,. A w .e.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ro. uc_,,. ... ..u, ucu om ................ ..............

I '

9212070452 691105 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A PDR

g- ,

o n MONTICLLID NUCLEAR CENERATING PLANT. UNIT 1 FSAR Containment and Class I Structures Report STRUCTURAL DESIGN The structures for the Monticello facility are not significantly different from those provided in other BWR f acilities recently evaluated at the operating licatae stage of review. The containment employs a typical pressure suppression system elmilar in design to those used in other f acilities such as the Dresden 2 and 3 plants.

We have reviewed the design of the structures and their foundations in the manner and to the depth employed on all recent applications we have evaluated. Except for one remaining issue on seismic design, we have concluded that the structures and foundations have been designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria and methods found to be accept-able at the construction permit phase of our review, and that an acceptable leak testing program for the containment will be established by the-Technical Specifications.

The one issue remaining to be resolved concerns the methods used for seismic design. This issue is similar to that faced in our evaluation of the Dresden 2 and 3 plants. We expect to resolve this issue prior to our meeting with the Committee and will report on its resolution at that time.

1 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _